SpiralStairs wrote:
ZephMarshack wrote:
There's no doubt that Jordan wouldn't have gotten away with his clean cut image if he was playing now, but Bernstein seems to want to use the narrative and expectations as significant factors in objective player evaluation. I on the other hand think it's absolute hogwash to use such constructs in evaluating player quality, and that people who preferred Jordan because they were under the impression he was a good guy are no more affected by spin than Bernstein is in his constant efforts to play contrarian to Chicago sports fans.
He wants to and if I step back and think about it it's not an entirely stupid argument. Dan's not wrong when he says that LeBron is the most highly scrutinized basketball player of all time. Shit just the other day people were wondering what it meant that he was playing without a
headband.
I know the argument is that these people are professional athletes and play on a world stage but I think there's something to be said about being able to put all the scrutiny and people begging for you to fail behind you and go out and succeed in spite of all the negativity. I know MJ had his fair share of haters but he was a world icon in spite of his sociopathic tendencies. LeBron seems much more likable yet there are a number of people who wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire.
Now that I'm typing all this out, and if you and I are reading Dan's argument correctly that means he thinks that LeBron has a *gasp*
intangible that makes him even better than he already is. I really hope I reading that right. Also I think I was rambling.
I think there are too many variables and unknown quantities in play when one introduces expectations as a relevant criterion. Should a guy who gets fueled by hate or who enjoys expectations be penalized if he has lots of haters in comparison to someone self-conscious about his image? Does Floyd Mayweather get less credit because he consciously chooses to play the villain than another boxer inadvertently cast in that role?
I also think lots of this expectation talk is in part a reflection of the narcissism of the sports media. I'm sure such matters can have an effect on players but the idea that they're substantively significant seems overstated to say the least and simply reprojects the eternal importance of the narrative above all else. What transpires on the court, field, ring, etc. seems to me to always be of far greater importance and one's evaluations should always be firmly focused there as well.
Finally, as you note at the close of your post, if you're bringing such issues into the discussion then you should do so consistently. Either intangibles are a thing that can and should be discussed for all players or they are not. Using one intangible to prop up a guy you like means you cannot dismiss others' efforts to do so with players they like on the basis of the non-existence of intangibles.
Sorry for rambling far more and far worse than you did.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
